Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for presidential elections
with or without the Electoral College. With a direct vote, voters would
rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then,
when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the
candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots
are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from
those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice.
The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing
time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.

Instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve
many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as
well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It
would end the spoiler dynamic of third party and independent candidates
and consistently produce a majority, nationwide winner. It also allows
voters to select their favorite candidate without ensuring a vote for
their least favorite (as often happens when the spoiler dynamic is a
factor and a voter prefers a third candidate the most).

Individual states can also adopt instant runoffs without a
Constitutional amendment. Unlike proportional allocation, which could
be unfair if only used in some states, IRV would not have negative
consequences if only adopted by a few states. Each state’s electors
would still be appointed through a winner-take-all method, but the IRV
states would now be guaranteed to have a winner with majority approval.
IRV would be best instituted without the Electoral College though, so
that the winner would not just enjoy a majority within any state, but
within the entire country.

FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy strongly supports
abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with direct elections
and instant runoff voting. See our web page on Instant Runoff Voting
for more descriptions and visual examples and our page refuting
arguments against direct election with IRV.

This system has been proposed with a number of variations, most
recently in Colorado. As a popular alternative, it splits each
state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote
percentages. This way, a candidate who come in second place in a state
with 45% of the popular vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes
from that state, instead of 0%.

This system would greatly increase voter turnout and the representation
of all parties in a state. It would also encourage candidates to
campaign in all states rather than just those that are competitive.
Though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state,
the minority's supporters would not be effectively contributing to
their candidate's defeat when the whole of their state's electoral
votes go a candidate they do not support.

One problem with this system is the question of how to allocate
electors proportionally. Percentages will seldom be equal to a whole
elector after being proportioned, and a single elector could not be
evenly divided among two or more candidates. Some suggest that one way
to patch this problem of uneven electors would be to increase the
number of electoral votes by a factor of 10 or 100 or more to reduce
the margin of error. Others suggest rounding to whole votes, tenth
votes, and a whole variety of decimal places beyond this. However, each
of these, though reducing the amount of error, would still permit error
and not succeed as thoroughly in making each vote count equally.

This would be difficult to pass on a nationwide basis and would most
likely have to pass state-by-state. During this process, or even in the
end if some states do not adopt the process, one party might gain an
unfair advantage. This could happen if some states were dividing up
their electoral votes while others were still giving all of their votes
to the majority party. For instance, imagine California switching to a
proportional allocation while Texas sticks with winner-take-all. The
result would leave California's 55 traditionally Democratic votes split
along proportional lines while all of Texas' 34 would likely go to the
Republican.

FairVote supports this method of reform, though it is not our preferred
choice. If the electoral votes for each state were proportioned exactly
(which would necessitate fractional electoral votes and/or electors),
this system would directly imitate the popular vote. However, we still
have in mind that giving states different numbers of electoral votes in
the first place provides imbalance and misrepresentation. Read a
well-informed and descriptive article of proportional allocation here.

This method would abolish the Electoral College and require each person
to cast one vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate who
receives the most votes nationwide would win the election, with or
without a majority of the votes. This option would require a
constitutional amendment to be implemented and would therefore need the
support of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

This method of voting would more accurately reflect the popular will of
the nation at large. Statistics have shown that more people vote when
they know that their vote has a better chance at making a difference.
Since each vote would affect the final total used to determine the
winner, a direct vote would eliminate the Electoral College’s ability
to create a non-competitive winner-take-all enclave that essentially
dilutes people’s votes. Direct elections are simple and popular, and
eliminate the potential problem of “faithless electors” betraying their
pledges to party and public, and unfairly negating any number of
popular votes.

A direct vote, however, would not eliminate the entrenchment of the two
party system nor the “spoiler” considerations of minor parties and
independent candidates. In a close race, voting for a candidate from a
minor party could reinforce the same spoiler dynamic as exists within
the current system. There is a possibility that with multiple
candidates, a winner could be declared with just a small plurality of
votes instead of a strong majority. Also, a close election would
require a nation-wide recount rather than just recounting the states in
question, which would make the process in such a situation much longer.

FairVote does believe that direct election is an appropriate goal for
our electoral system. However, we also believe that it only comprises
one-half of the best kind of system reform, direct election with
Instant Runoff Voting which would ensure a majority, not just a
plurality, outcome.

This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to
each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide
popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine
since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had a
statewide winner that has not swept all of the Congressional districts
as well. Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its electoral
votes.

This system does not address the disproportional aspects of the
Electoral College. Using Congressional districts to determine each
elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn,
already a contentious topic in politics today. The vast majority of
districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political
parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on
Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting
considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting. (For more
information see our page on the controversial process of
redistricting).

Also, while the current system causes the candidates to pay the most
attention to just a handful of states, the Congressional District
method would actually make their attention even more tunneled. There
are normally anywhere from 10-20 competitive swing states in any given
election. With this method, candidates would shift their focuses to
competitive districts, the number of which would be small enough to
further reduce the reach of presidential campaigns, promises and
attention.

Although we can see how this method might benefit some states
individually, it is actually quite detrimental on a national scale.
Because the spoiler dynamic, gerrymandering and very few competitive
districts would be so decisive in the outcome of an election using the
Congressional district format, FairVote does not support this reform
method.

This idea, proposed by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., retains the
current Electoral College system, but also awards extra electoral votes
as a bonus to the winner of the popular vote. The amount suggested by
Schlesinger in his National Bonus Plan is 102 extra electoral votes
(two for every state and Washington, DC). The extra boost of electoral
votes would almost always be able to guarantee that the popular vote
winner would also be the electoral college winner. While technically
maintaining the institution, this option compensates for the uneven
power given to the states by the Electoral College.

This method does not eliminate the spoiler dynamic of third party
participation, but would encourage people to campaign and vote in
non-competitive states in an attempt to win the popular vote. In the
2000 election, for example, Gore had no reason to campaign in Texas
because, with a winner take all allocation of electoral votes, Bush’s
conservative home state was clearly going to bring in a Republican
majority. However, the Democratic voters living in Texas would have had
more incentive to go to the polls if the popular vote affected the
election. This situation is the same for the second place party in
every state.

FairVote admires the attempt of this plan, but ultimately does not
support it. Its bonus total is randomly derived and does not always
ensure that the popular vote winner will also be the Electoral College
winner, as a direct election does. It also does not deal with
non-majority winners, and maintains the imbalance created by allocating
a different number of electoral votes to each state.

Professor and author, Judith A. Best also has a proposal to amend the
Constitution, although in a drastically different way than those we
have explored so far.

Best would like to amend the Constitution to bind all electors
federally, meaning that they would be forced to vote based on their
party pledge if their party's nominee wins their state. Her amendment
would also enshrine the winner-take-all unit rule into the
Constitution.

Although it goes without saying, FairVote does not agree with this
amendment proposal. Although federally binding electors would prevent
future faithless electors enshrining the winner-take-all allocation
into the Constitution would only confirm the unrepresentative nature of
the Electoral College system.

Several proposals in the last fifty years have wanted to remove the
office of elector while retaining the Electoral College. This
removes the problem of the faithless elector and guarantees that
state's electoral votes are automatically given to the candidate
winning the state contest.

Obviously the faithless elector is one problem in the current system,
it is not the over-riding problem. FairVote does not agree with
this proposal which only succeeds in fixing one tiny part of the
problem with the Electoral College.